Good point Randy. And also, lets take the section of the Bible, Paul, for instance. It says (and I really don't know what chapter and/or verse it is... I'd have to look) that women should remain quiet in church and later ask their husbands should there be any questions. This offended me once upon a time. I asked a theologian friend of mine to explain the purpose behind this, and actually, that statement is not divine intervention talking (in the opinion of some), but instead, simply Paul's views about the church while writing his letters to the Corinthian church.

When the status of women are refered to in a derogatory manner, it's usually because of the historical placement of women in society at that time. I don't think it necessarily reflects God's own opinions on the subject. Then again, Lilith probably made Him jaded just a bit. lol.

Interests:video, paintball, theology, philosophy, political science, sci-fi, and so on, and so forth...

Posted 24 April 2004 - 01:52 PM

ana: this is basically true. you also have to take into account the historical context of the situation. first, i think Paul, as you alluded, didn't think highly of women. he was, after all (in his own words) a "pharisee's pharisee." this means that certain doctrines remained ingrained in him.

As for the church he was writing to, I've heard it suggested by some historians that the particular church was plagued by some particularly unruly women.

That sounds like more of a cultural thing to me than a Christianity thing to be honest. I was brought up Catholic, and the women of my parish had more than a little say in Church affairs And the same went with other Christian Churches in my home town.

And, don't Mormon's believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three seperate divine beings? That's how the missionaries explained it to me when they visited me on and off for a year. If that's the case, that sounds like polytheism to me, so it would stand to reason that being Wiccan/Christian is definitely possible from some Christain viewpoints. I don't think Wiccans have a problem with the two incorporating beliefs.

BB, Ana

To be fair, Mormons are polytheists. We do believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals who make up the governing counsel (called "Godhead" in Mormon circles). You may also hear that we believe in multiple generations of gods and goddesses (indeed, we ourselves may become gods and goddesses to other worlds). The way we rationalize our claim as Christians is that we only worship the Father.

Interests:video, paintball, theology, philosophy, political science, sci-fi, and so on, and so forth...

Posted 26 April 2004 - 05:34 AM

greyghost: your church is wrong. sorry. just the way it is.

others: the evangelicals (like myself) see the trinity as together but separate. it is a hard concept to wrap ones head around, but i heard a decent explanation once.

think of time. Time is one concept; one entity, if you will. yet, it exists in three separate parts: Past, Present and Future. These are all dependent upon one another, and part of the same entity (Time), yet they are separated into three different parts.

*Watches the thread with great interest* At one time Aloha, I would have made mention of your last sentance. Now, I trully understand the wider scope of things, and I don't let one's denomination stand in the way of figuring out what's right and wrong and how one should live their life. I must admit, it's nice to see a mormon posting here, doing so openly, and having people questions and converse about it open-mindedly.

hmmm....I have always understood that Wicca as we know it today is a 20th century religion, based on pre-Christian practices, but wholly new.

You're correct. Wicca as it is known today was started in England in the early part of the 20th Century by Gerald Gardner. It was brought to the United States between 1930 and 1940 and was made popular here by Raymond Buckland, a Romani (Gypsy) who is/was an initiate of Gerald Gardner. There have since been many incarnations of Wicca, but only a few of them are what can truly be called Wicca. Alexandrian Wicca (started by Alex Sanders), Dianic Wicca (traditionally practiced by women) Pecti-Wita (started by Raymond Buckland) and a couple of others. These are all "mystery religions" that require initiation into a coven by someone who is already part of that coven.

What is wildly popular today in the U.S. is actually neo-Wicca. There are probably about 100 sects of neo-Wicca today, including Celtic Wicca and Fairy Wicca, however none of them are truly Wicca because they don't require initiation.

One of the worst things that could have happened to Wicca was Silver RavenWolf and her band of followers (predominantly the crew who writes books for the Llewellyn publishing company). Silver Ravenwolf has taken Wicca and twisted it so badly that it is no longer recognizable as Wicca. She has incorporated parts of Christianity into it in order to make it seem less "occult" so that parents will not object to it and allow their kids to buy her books. Much of what is printed in her books is patently false and horribly inaccurate information concerning witchcraft in general and Wicca in particular.

A few things to keep in mind:1. Wiccans don't mind people being Christian and Wiccan, however Christians don't afford the same consideration in most cases.

2. If the Wiccan in question is not initiated into a coven, and if that initiation cannot be traced directly back to Gerald Gardner (via who initiated who, the records are all available) then they are not Wiccan at all, but neo-Wiccan.

3. What Silver Ravenwolf says about "self-initiation" is patently false. One CANNOT initiate themselves into a coven. Initiation, by its very definition, means that a person or persons does the initiating TO another person or persons. It's entierly possible to SELF-DEDICATE onesself to a path, however it is still not considered Wicca at that point, but neo-Wicca.

Lots of neo-Wiccans get highly bent out of shape if they are referred to as "neo-Wiccan" and not "Wiccan" and for the life of me, I can't understand why. It's not a slur or a slam against them, it's correct terminology. It would be like a Catholic trying to call themselves a Baptist and getting mad at someone who tried to call them a Catholic. You can't be what you are technically not. It doesn't make one any less Pagan or any less "witchy" it just calls a spade a spade and uses the correct terminology. If those people don't want to be neo-Wiccan, they can always find themselves a coven, find a mentor, do their year-and-a-day, and go for official initiation. Then they'll be Wiccan.

4. Wicca is an oathbound religion. All that we, as the general public, know about Wicca is the outer-court material that is published in books. There is a lot more inner-court material that isn't even told to the initiates until after they are in the coven. They don't even learn it while they are learning what they need to know to be initiated. It comes after the initiation is complete.

Part of this inner-court knowledge is the names of the gods/goddesses that are worshipped. So if one is not privy to the inner-court material, and insists on calling onesself a Wiccan, it can get pretty embarassing if they end up in a conversation with a real initiated Wiccan who, when the first person announces they are Wiccan, challenges them to some inner-court material and the answers are not known. It's much better to be honest about one's path and not pretend to be something one isn't.